Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:25, 23 March 2010

Latest revision as of 19:57, 5 February 2023

(8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''KEEP''' The noms rationale doesn't play out. Sources clearly show notability. As the for the technical nature of the subject or how the article is written, that's not a reason for deletion. Most of the articles in [[:Category:Statistical algorithms]] are beyond comprehension by mere mortals. As for the COI issue. Not a reason for deletion. [[User:Mike Cline|Mike Cline]] ([[User talk:Mike Cline|talk]]) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

===[[Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

:{{la|Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 22#{{anchorencode:Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm}}|2=AfD statistics}})

Line 8 ⟶ 16:

*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—[[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)</small>

*'''Keep''' - '''Brooks-Iyengar Algorithm''' an article in the relatively new field of Distributed Sensor Networks (DSN). DSNs have a wide range of real-time applications in aerospace, automation, battle field management, defense, medical imaging, home automation, robotics, and weather prediction. On [[WP:N]]: The '''Brooks-Iyengar hybrid algorithm''' is notable because it bridges the gap between sensor fusion and Byzantine fault tolerance. Perhaps its notability is relative next to lists of every single Pokemon. But in the field of DSNs, it is notable. I get many more hits with the word hybrid in the title. This article needs a better introduction for the layperson, although the detail is good for a Systems Engineer such as myself to understand. The major ideas need to be introduced. Sensor fusion deals with combining the sensory data from multiple sensors and creating the equivalent of a more reliable sensor. The Byzantine fault tolerance is a mechanism by which failing sensors or faulty network connections between sensors can be ignored. I think the [[WP:COI]] issue is minimal and can be overlooked with other editors participating in the edit process. [[User:kgrr|<fontspan style="background: lightblue">&nbsp;kgrr</fontspan>]] [[User talk:kgrr|^<b>talk</b>]] 15:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''; first of all, this isn't an encyclopedia entry, it does little to explain the topic to a general audience. This could only stay with a total rewrite. But on top of that, there are some severe COI and original research issues. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''': The article may be too technical for most readers to understand, but this is no reason to delete it. I think the initial edit by Dr. Iyengar was made in good faith. I believe the COI and "original research issues" can be addressed with other authors being involved. [[User:kgrr|<fontspan style="background: lightblue">&nbsp;kgrr</fontspan>]] [[User talk:kgrr|^<b>talk</b>]] 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

::I think that COI is a significant consideration to keep in mind, but, more importantly, I still do not see substantial [[WP:V|verifiable]] evidence of [[WP:N|notability]] of the topic. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

:::The original paper, Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar (Jun 1996). "Robust Distributed Computing and Sensing Algorithm". Computer (IEEE) 29 (6): pp. 53-60. doi:10.1109/2.507632. ISSN 0018-9162 is referred by at least two books and a half of a dozen peer-reviewed journal papers. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=13594244700994039809&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=1G-oS5HfLpLmswOztvGBAw&sa=X&oi=science_links&resnum=3&ct=sl-citedby&ved=0CB4QzgIwAjgU Google Scholar search showing 50 references citing the paper] How many of these references do you need to establish notability? Books and journal papers are certainly considered reliable sources. If the paper is cited by other works and the paper is cited in several survey papers and at least two books covering sensor networks, then this satisfies the secondary source requirement. The other works are independent of Richard R. Brooks and S. Sithrama Iyengar. Tell me what all you need, I will look it all up for you. [[User:kgrr|<fontspan style="background: lightblue">&nbsp;kgrr</fontspan>]] [[User talk:kgrr|^<b>talk</b>]] 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

:*'''Strong Keep'''; True, "it does little to explain the topic to a general audience", but this article is not intended for a general audience. The article is easily understandable to anyone with a computer science degree. --[[User:Dc987|Dc987]] ([[User talk:Dc987|talk]]) 07:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

::This is an encyclopedia, not [[Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal|an academic journal or a textbook]]. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' Notability has been shown. Certainly needs a popular science makeover but that's no reason to delete. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 10:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

:* comment - I have added text to clear up the issues, but I'm not quite good enough to dumb it down to the point of a popular science makeover. Anyone that runs into the term will understand what the algorithm does. I have linked it into related articles. Etc. Let me know what else the article needs in order to survive deletion by the Wikipedia Thinkpol. [[User:kgrr|<span style="background: lightblue">&nbsp;kgrr</span>]] [[User talk:kgrr|^<b>talk</b>]] 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>